Do you think that GT is losing the battle against Forza?

What do you think of GT now?

  • Still the best there is!!!

    Votes: 309 61.6%
  • Screw GT! I'll play Forza now!

    Votes: 36 7.2%
  • It's going to be a nice battle.

    Votes: 136 27.1%
  • I'm still playing Pole Position

    Votes: 21 4.2%

  • Total voters
    502
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't recall at any point during GT4's development PD making any promises that damage would be included. They did say it would in GT5, but it's only now that's they actually started talking about it like they're getting ready to actually include it. Only they've had to say they arn't getting good enough response from manufacturers at this point in time. So far, this is the only occasion where PD have every said damage will be in, then said, well not straight away, maybe as a download in the future.
That is true, they didn't promise damage, but they said there would be some type of visual impact, but it was only a blurr, and only worked on the closest visual settting. I don't really know what I was thinking when I said that :odd: for the most part, you're right. I guess it just dissapointed me a lot, it was soo close to perfection.
 
I don't recall at any point during GT4's development PD making any promises that damage would be included. They did say it would in GT5
Quote a source on this other than a media "trial-balloon" that PD favours.
I've never seen Kaz quoted as saying damage was in, for example.

Cheers,

MasterGT
 
Quote a source on this other than a media "trial-balloon" that PD favours.
I've never seen Kaz quoted as saying damage was in, for example.

Cheers,

MasterGT
How about you do the quoting?
After all, you are the one saying you've seen it said before.
Although I must ask, are you talking about damage being in GT4 or GT5?
In any case, feel free to provide the quotes you are refferencing. 👍
 
Quote a source on this other than a media "trial-balloon" that PD favours.
I've never seen Kaz quoted as saying damage was in, for example.

Cheers,

MasterGT

Actually there have been numerous times:
  • Once in a slideshow during a press event (I forget which one, I think it was TGS). It said it was a possible target.
  • Once in a magazine named Joypad.
  • In another magazine he un-confirmed it and re-confirmed damage just for race cars.
  • I don't think we'll see cosmetic damage in GT5.
 
If you ask me, stressing the value of FM2 for the paintshop and unrealistic damage is doing exactly what is mentioned above, loving style over substance. :ouch:

Kent I was stressing the 'enhancements' that these elements bring to the overall feel and enjoyment to the overall game which in combination with all the other good elements (including IMO the essential AI and online which i referred first!) deliver a great sim game experience, the Unrealistic visual damage (licensing restrictions apply) is nothing im excited by though its still better than Zero so far from PD, what more interested me was the Spins and vehicle collisions, which add greatly to the racing experience and were much more realistic than anything seen in GT to date, the multiple areas of actual mechanical damage are also great addition to the gameplay, far beyond anything PD has delivered.

More Substance and a little style for good measure, is not style over substance!:ouch:

Unless you have a creative mind, then the Paint shop is of little use, and maybe its pure Style, though i disagree, but its a nice bonus that alows me to to personalise my hard earned vehicles, from the smallest additional elements to full on liveries or artwork, this gives more to the Photomode and is also nice online, and given that turn 10 delivered a good balance of features for the rest of the game, i certainly wouldnt say that they went for style over substance here either.

Currently FM2 has more to offer than GT has delivered (except in the quantity of car and tracks), Knowledge of GT5 content is Sketchy and uninformed, for a few Xbox kids to say that GT5 has blown away FM2 based on a stylised video of GT5 shown at E3 and a few screens, clearly shows they were drawn more to the style of the game, GT5 substance is all hot air right now.


Master GT, I fully hope PD will deliver on many of there old, old promises, and if they do will easily retake the mantle which for ME, FM2 has taken (FM2 is still lacking overall in many areas, but still managed to equal and surpass GT).
For me GT4 lost all its value when The Online element was taken away, and the old AI routine left in, IF PD only fixes those 2 areas, FM2 will have been a nice intermediate filler.
However after GT5 i will also be very much looking forward to FM3!
 
Spins and vehicle collisions,

This is the most important IMO, along with greatly improved AI.

The next thing would be mechanical damage (online is also essential in general, but not to me in particular).

I've also noticed, in both Forza & GT4, liveried cars look much more convincing than cars with a single colour of paint - which is one more argument for visual customization.

In general, IMO, GT4 is better than FM (although not perfect by any means) for in-game single-car driving (as in track-attack), but GT4 sucks for actual in-game racing

This is what PD have to radically improve upon to stand a chance against Turn10.
 
No matter how good GT5 will be, somebody somewhere will try to rake PD over hot coals for something they feel is out of whack. The taller the pedestal PD is on, the harder someone will try to knock them off of it.

Cheers,

MasterGT
In a way, you're assuming GT5 will have no problems worth criticizing. A nearly impossible feat in the videogame industry, even for the "infallible" Polyphony Digital.

In fact, since it seems like damage probably won't be a part of GT5, they've already failed at perfection. I really couldn't care less if the game had damage or not, but I know there are others that consider it an important part of a game like this. And they shouldn't be discounted just because the game is popular.
 
This is the most important IMO, along with greatly improved AI.

The next thing would be mechanical damage (online is also essential in general, but not to me in particular).

I've also noticed, in both Forza & GT4, liveried cars look much more convincing than cars with a single colour of paint - which is one more argument for visual customization.

In general, IMO, GT4 is better than FM (although not perfect by any means) for in-game single-car driving (as in track-attack), but GT4 sucks for actual in-game racing

This is what PD have to radically improve upon to stand a chance against Turn10.

👍
For me the actual racing element is one of the most important elements these days, i have over 25 years racing/driving gaming history, and for me AI and race craft are the elements that are lagging in developement across so many titles, (I know Kaz says its a real driving sim not a real racing sim, but to me thats just a cop out.)
That is what makes the Online arena so critical to me in a game, you simply cannot beat running with a group of similarly skilled players online!
Good AI is important to the stand alone game, and is essential to me in order that i will gain some pleasure from putting in the many hours required to attain vehicles.
It is that which GT4 failed to deliver to me, and why FM2 managed to steal its crown.
The bar is raised and i look forward to PD delivering a worthy title that will take it back.
 
Eh playing FM2 online is lame, especially if you want to have a good clean race. I always get stuck in a room with younger kids that think anything lower then S class cars are dumb and when you start beating them they just run into you.
 
Eh playing FM2 online is lame, especially if you want to have a good clean race. I always get stuck in a room with younger kids that think anything lower then S class cars are dumb and when you start beating them they just run into you.

It can be lame if you let it be.
But you can also find a community of clean racers of varying ability if you spend some time with it.
The trick is to find yourself a few friends online, who are looking for the same experience then look for them online, if they are as conciensious as you, they will likely be racing in quality rooms, from here you can expand your list of friends further and further.
I currently have friends from around 3 seperate groups with whom i race regularly, and now hardly ever end up with just fools to race against.
This is just one of the ways to enhance your online experience, and all online games suffer from the juvenile element, you just have to put some effort into finding people with whom you can enjoy racing!
 
How about you do the quoting?
After all, you are the one saying you've seen it said before.
Although I must ask, are you talking about damage being in GT4 or GT5?
In any case, feel free to provide the quotes you are refferencing. 👍
What am I to quote? If I haven't ever seen Kaz say damage is in, how am I to quote that he said it? All I said was I haven't seen him say damage is definitely "in" yet, so I wanted to see him quoted saying that it is.

Anything I've seen, so far, had damage listed as a maybe, most recently for the PS3 versions, starting with the original GT:HD announcement. "Aiming" for damage is not definite. If something more recent and more definitive has been said, I'm all ears.

115890198308.jpg


While some rumours in magazines (PD's many trial-balloons) may pan out to be true, I'd rather hear Kaz himself say damage is in.

Cheers,

MasterGT
 
In a way, you're assuming GT5 will have no problems worth criticizing. A nearly impossible feat in the videogame industry, even for the "infallible" Polyphony Digital.
I would never, ever make an assumption like that. I am not one of those who puts PD/GT4 up on any pedestal. PD is good, but they don't deserve worshiping.

I was probably the first to publicly call GT4 a "beta" version because of its poor qualities. That doesn't mean I don't like the game, far from it, and I'll support the game to the best of my abilities and allotted time, but even that doesn't mean I won't criticize GT, when necessary.

GT needs tough love.

Cheers,

MasterGT
 
If you ask me, stressing the value of FM2 for the paintshop and unrealistic damage is doing exactly what is mentioned above, loving style over substance. :ouch:
I have to dissagree with this, just because the damage isn't all too realistic, that doesn't mean it offers no substance. At the end of the day, on sim settings, while the car doesn't crumple or wreck, it still effects how you drive in the right ways. Thats the damage having a direct influence on the game and how you play it.

Likewise, with the paint shop, you get to create you own car, your own work of art, your own replica of a real car ect. Do people look at a Money painting and think "all style and no substance". You can get a lot of pleasure and satisfaction from perfecting your car design. The paint shop offers a vast ammount of substance to let your creative talents out and as a result, can offer a large ammount of satisfaction too.

Style and no substance would be simply making the game more stylish without giving you any more potions to control or and more contrl over what was previousely available. Both the damage and paint shop in Forza 2 offer more than they did in Forza 1.
 
Eh playing FM2 online is lame, especially if you want to have a good clean race. I always get stuck in a room with younger kids that think anything lower then S class cars are dumb and when you start beating them they just run into you.

Maybe your new to Xbox Live and FM2, but as soon as the first mutliplayer menu appears you can select a custom race type to search for. You can search for class and track and race type. What more can you ask for? Whining little punks teens get booted if you have a good host, or even some good friends on your list that are clean racers. Yes I have had plenty of bad races, but I leave and find many many more great ones.
 
Forza's damage is laughable
Forza's physics are weak
Forza's technical modding is as dumbed down as a game of halo

so im going to have to say No:sly:

BTW a 69 Fbody getting that much traction is exactly why Forza is the dumb 15 year olds GT

didnt Forza 2 make a joke of this guy

now for Polyphony to get the PS3 humming like the X360 does with FM2
 
I was probably the first to publicly call GT4 a "beta" version because of its poor qualities.
i support anything thats good

the POS2 was a totally gutless wonder , Polyphony did a damm fine job in getting large car selection & large tracks (nordschlife) running smoothly on that system

they know the sony system , & imo are masters are getting it optimised
 
I did not read the previous 39 pages (too much time) but here's my input on this. If anybody cares to even read it because I'm sure it'll be very long.:lol:


PD was a pioneer when it came out with the first GT game. There really wasn't anything like it at that caliber. I mean, real cars and real tracks to race them on with customizations to the car. They reign as kings for many years to come with the release of GT2, then GT3 with absolutely amazing graphics for the PS2. When GT4 came out, they kind of dropped the ball when they didn't improve on any of the faults that were in the previous games and just added more cars and tracks.

Forza Motorsports 1 came out and it offered something new to the genre. Not only could you do engine/drivetrain/suspension modifications but they also added exterior modifications to the cars, car classification, damage and the most important which was online support which added a whole new level of fun and challenges to the game. In my opinion, this was the point where Turn 10 was on par with PD as king of the racing game genre. Forza 1 wasn't a very good game but it was good enough to dethrone GT4 in terms of better physics (though it was still weak) and AI, online playability, a lot more customization content and you just can't beat the ability to swap an RB26DETT into an S14 Silvia.:D

Graphics, car modeling and animation(PD is still King at this) wise, Forza 1 was horrible compared to GT4 and it was running on a more powerful system. The sounds were a little bit better in Forza 1 but still nothing to jump for joy over. Forza 1 running at only 30 fps compared to GT4's 60fps were also a big disappointment and the amounts of cars and tracks were also puny compared to what GT4 was offering. So, it's a draw between GT4 and Forza 1 when you look at the pros and cons of both games. This is just my personal opinion so if you disagree, feel free to comment.:)

That was pretty much all last generation so let's move onto this generation. Turn 10 has definately taken over as King of the genre with the recent release of Forza 2. Better physics, better AI, even more ways to customize your cars including even more engine and drivetrain swaps. The game is also running at a smooth 60fps and the damage physics is as good as you can get with licensed production cars. You will not see a wheel fall off or an engine blow up and the car catching on fire because the game is using licensed production cars! The manufacturers of these cars would never allow their cars to be portrayed that way in a game.

If and when a GT game comes out that will feature damage, it will also be limited to what Forza 2 was limited to because it will also be featuring licensed production cars. This may be the reason why Kazunori hasn't implemented damage into any GT racing games. He's a perfectionist and if he is to do something, it has to be 100% or not at all. This may also be the reason why he said that there will be damage on race cars only because race cars does not follow the same licensing rules and regulations as production cars.

PD has the ability to overtake Turn10 very easily if they wish to do so. They've had a lot more experience at this than Turn10 have but they must really take a look at their competitor and what they're offering. They also have to take a look at this forum and see what their fan base are asking for (within reason, of course). Turn 10 did this with Forza 2 and a lot of their fans are happy with "a few" of the improvements they did with their 2nd installment. A few improvements is still better than nothing, in my opinion.

I'm hoping that PD is doing what Turn10 did by taking into account what their fans are wanting in this 5th installment. Also looking at what the competitors are offering and build their next game to set the bar even higher. So far, we know next to nothing about GT5 and what we do know and can see with our eyes, it's already better than what Forza 2 is offering. That is 16 cars on the track at the same time, amazing graphics and if the sounds they were using for the trailers are in game then that's another plus for PD. If they want to beat Turn10 in car selection then they will have to add Porsche, Maserati and Lamborghini into the game and get rid of all the 60hp cars. :lol:

I'm also hoping that Kazunori is looking at the Logitech G25 steering wheel and will say to himself, "self, we really need to implement a clutch pedal into the game that would make full use of that steering wheel." If they want to call their game a "real driving simulator" then this would fit perfectly into the game. Like I said, PD has the ability to take back their throne easily but they'll have to really do their homework on this one.


Summary of all the jibberish....

GT1,2,3 = PD was King!
GT4 + Forza 2 = PD and Turn 10 are both sharing the throne.
Forza 2 = Turn 10 is now King.
GT5 = Don't know, depends on how the game will be but results could be another shared throne, Turn 10 remains King or PD kicking Turn10's butt out of the castle and reclaim the throne. :D
 
the POS2 was a totally gutless wonder
The PS2, though the weakest of "the big three" (PS2, XB, GCN), came out first, and with how quickly the computer hardware industry moves, time can make a big difference in price. In order to outpower the GameCube yet be first on the market, Sony probably would have had to spend more than they did, and the price of the PS2 would have been higher. Outpowering the XBOX would probably have led to the infamous "$599 USD" speech happening all the way back in 1999/2000. :lol:

I think the PS2 was powerful enough for its needs. The only thing that makes it a "POS2" is its almost appallingly poor reliability.

Polyphony did a damm fine job in getting large car selection & large tracks (nordschlife) running smoothly on that system

they know the sony system , & imo are masters are getting it optimised
Given enough memory on the cartridge, an Atari 2600 racing game could have a car selection just as big as GT4's, with all of the same detailed specifications. Processing power is unrelated.

That aside, I don't think Polyphony Digital are masters of system optimization at all. If they were, in GT4, we wouldn't be limited to 6-car grids on dry tracks and 2-car grids in other conditions. We wouldn't have to drive open-top cars or convertibles with the top down all by ourselves. We wouldn't have a limited track selection, limited car selection, and limited replay function in 2-player mode. There wouldn't have been performance problems keeping PD from including workable online play. And there wouldn't be occasional screen shimmer resulting from an unstable framerate, or terribly low-resolution textures on some trackside scenery, despite all of these limitations.

No, instead of optimizing the game for the system, Polyphony Digital went way above and beyond the capabilities of the PS2, designing this grandiose game that had all sorts of pre-release promises, and then, when they realized it wouldn't work on the PS2, they wasted time cutting stuff out, dumbing stuff down, and then doing testing to make sure the changes didn't screw anything up or leave bugs. That's probably where at least some of the delays came from.

Proof of this misguided ambition is in the GT Visions demo, where, suddenly and mysteriously, the power of the PS3 enabled PD to run GT4 the way they originally envisioned it. Amazing? Not really. Just a lack of thinking ahead.

More proof is in the GT4-powered spinoff Tourist Trophy, where you're embarrassingly limited to 4-bike grids with race bikes on certain tracks, and 2-bike grids with street bikes. I love the game, but the inefficiency of the GT4 engine makes for some small, boring races.

With GT5, so far it seems they're using the extra power to work from where they left off and add larger grids, interior views with moving drivers, open-top convertibles in races, etc. Let's just hope they don't get ahead of themselves again, and also don't forget to improve other areas of the game.
 
You will not see a wheel fall off or an engine blow up and the car catching on fire because the game is using licensed production cars! The manufacturers of these cars would never allow their cars to be portrayed that way in a game.
False.

It's a fact that it's just to hard to program explosions and such. I clearly recall losing wheels in Colin McRae 04 and up, and we all see cars blow up in movies all the time. Once you pay for a license you can usually do whatever you want with the car. People just make these (oh the manufactures wouldn't want that) crap up. In essence, as long as the car has screen time, it's getting publicity, and as anyone will tell you. There is no such thing as bad publicity.

In a way, if you go to far, it would subtract from the game. If I could roll and detonate my (insert car here) would I be booted from the race? Or would my car magically regenerate and warp back to the track? Would it retain the damage I had before it was totaled, or would it be fully repaired now?

Put yourself in the position of a programmer, considering all these options... Isn't it just easier to push your car to the furthest state of damage while still running, thus making it possible to limp to the pits and possibly repair your machine? Polyphony obviously decided to write out this problem entirely, effectively saving both programming time and memory on the disc itself.

I'm not defending PD's choice on this matter, personally I'm baffled as to how the term 'simulation' ever got mated to this game series. But try not to make blind assumptions without considering all the factors.
 
Polyphony are absolutly masters at system optimisation

the PS2 was obsolete the day it released - over 1GHZ CPU's had been selling for over a year before the PS2 release date

what Polyphony managed to do was get a resemblance of real world handeling , that was adjustable with semi-realistic results happening with high quality (considering the hardware) 3D models - running at a consistently smooth frame rate

the fidelity of GT4 considering how limited the POS2 is amazing - how many of you were not amazed at the GT4 Nordschlife ?

do you know how CPU cycle heavy running Ai is ? & running multiple Ai at once - you know how demanding that can be ? case in point is how much more Xbox version of the same game can run . Valve never bothered to even try HL2 on the POS2 for good reason . it lacks the balls

GT4 also fudges with simplistic physics - but Polyphony managed to get the (1000+ ?) cars showing variation in performance & the Ai runs them accordingly

Polyphony know how to put together a smooth running game on Sony's architecture
, & now with the PS3 it finally has some decent power to use
GT5 will be worth owning
 
False.

It's a fact that it's just to hard to program explosions and such. I clearly recall losing wheels in Colin McRae 04 and up, and we all see cars blow up in movies all the time. Once you pay for a license you can usually do whatever you want with the car. People just make these (oh the manufactures wouldn't want that) crap up. In essence, as long as the car has screen time, it's getting publicity, and as anyone will tell you. There is no such thing as bad publicity.

In a way, if you go to far, it would subtract from the game. If I could roll and detonate my (insert car here) would I be booted from the race? Or would my car magically regenerate and warp back to the track? Would it retain the damage I had before it was totaled, or would it be fully repaired now?

Put yourself in the position of a programmer, considering all these options... Isn't it just easier to push your car to the furthest state of damage while still running, thus making it possible to limp to the pits and possibly repair your machine? Polyphony obviously decided to write out this problem entirely, effectively saving both programming time and memory on the disc itself.

I'm not defending PD's choice on this matter, personally I'm baffled as to how the term 'simulation' ever got mated to this game series. But try not to make blind assumptions without considering all the factors.






The Colin McRae series never featured any "licensed production cars". They were all "licensed race cars" that no longer considered a true representation of the original car that the manufacturer produced. Movie licensing and game licensing are completely different. It's the same reason why you cannot swap a Chevy engine into a Dodge in Forza 2 yet in Tokyo Drift, they swapped a Nissan engine into a Ford Mustang. I'm not making this up and the developers are not "making excuses" for why they're not fully simulating damages in a racing game. That's just silly to even think that!

The same can be said with Motorstorm and the newly released DiRT. Neither one of these games had "licensed production cars" in them so they can be damaged to whatever extent. Of course leaving out damage physics will save on programming time but if you claim to be a simulator, you better start putting in more man hour to develop a simulator and not an arcade racer.



Edit: Just for you, here is a licensing manager for Ford Motor Company, Mark Bentley. ;)


http://pc.gamezone.com/news/09_11_06_10_41AM.htm
 
I did not read the previous 39 pages (too much time) but here's my input on this. If anybody cares to even read it because I'm sure it'll be very long.


PD was a pioneer when it came out with the first GT game. There really wasn't anything like it at that caliber. I mean, real cars and real tracks to race them on with customizations to the car. They reign as kings for many years to come with the release of GT2, then GT3 with absolutely amazing graphics for the PS2. When GT4 came out, they kind of dropped the ball when they didn't improve on any of the faults that were in the previous games and just added more cars and tracks.

Forza Motorsports 1 came out and it offered something new to the genre. Not only could you do engine/drivetrain/suspension modifications but they also added exterior modifications to the cars, car classification, damage and the most important which was online support which added a whole new level of fun and challenges to the game. In my opinion, this was the point where Turn 10 was on par with PD as king of the racing game genre. Forza 1 wasn't a very good game but it was good enough to dethrone GT4 in terms of better physics (though it was still weak) and AI, online playability, a lot more customization content and you just can't beat the ability to swap an RB26DETT into an S14 Silvia.

Graphics, car modeling and animation(PD is still King at this) wise, Forza 1 was horrible compared to GT4 and it was running on a more powerful system. The sounds were a little bit better in Forza 1 but still nothing to jump for joy over. Forza 1 running at only 30 fps compared to GT4's 60fps were also a big disappointment and the amounts of cars and tracks were also puny compared to what GT4 was offering. So, it's a draw between GT4 and Forza 1 when you look at the pros and cons of both games. This is just my personal opinion so if you disagree, feel free to comment.

That was pretty much all last generation so let's move onto this generation. Turn 10 has definately taken over as King of the genre with the recent release of Forza 2. Better physics, better AI, even more ways to customize your cars including even more engine and drivetrain swaps. The game is also running at a smooth 60fps and the damage physics is as good as you can get with licensed production cars. You will not see a wheel fall off or an engine blow up and the car catching on fire because the game is using licensed production cars! The manufacturers of these cars would never allow their cars to be portrayed that way in a game.

If and when a GT game comes out that will feature damage, it will also be limited to what Forza 2 was limited to because it will also be featuring licensed production cars. This may be the reason why Kazunori hasn't implemented damage into any GT racing games. He's a perfectionist and if he is to do something, it has to be 100% or not at all. This may also be the reason why he said that there will be damage on race cars only because race cars does not follow the same licensing rules and regulations as production cars.

PD has the ability to overtake Turn10 very easily if they wish to do so. They've had a lot more experience at this than Turn10 have but they must really take a look at their competitor and what they're offering. They also have to take a look at this forum and see what their fan base are asking for (within reason, of course). Turn 10 did this with Forza 2 and a lot of their fans are happy with "a few" of the improvements they did with their 2nd installment. A few improvements is still better than nothing, in my opinion.

I'm hoping that PD is doing what Turn10 did by taking into account what their fans are wanting in this 5th installment. Also looking at what the competitors are offering and build their next game to set the bar even higher. So far, we know next to nothing about GT5 and what we do know and can see with our eyes, it's already better than what Forza 2 is offering. That is 16 cars on the track at the same time, amazing graphics and if the sounds they were using for the trailers are in game then that's another plus for PD. If they want to beat Turn10 in car selection then they will have to add Porsche, Maserati and Lamborghini into the game and get rid of all the 60hp cars.

I'm also hoping that Kazunori is looking at the Logitech G25 steering wheel and will say to himself, "self, we really need to implement a clutch pedal into the game that would make full use of that steering wheel." If they want to call their game a "real driving simulator" then this would fit perfectly into the game. Like I said, PD has the ability to take back their throne easily but they'll have to really do their homework on this one.


Summary of all the jibberish....

GT1,2,3 = PD was King!
GT4 + Forza 2 = PD and Turn 10 are both sharing the throne.
Forza 2 = Turn 10 is now King.
GT5 = Don't know, depends on how the game will be but results could be another shared throne, Turn 10 remains King or PD kicking Turn10's butt out of the castle and reclaim the throne.

I would agree almost 100% with this commentary.

I came to GT4 after a couple of years playing Forza. Initially, I really enjoyed the more realistic graphics, the great replays, driving with the G25 wheel, & the Nurburgring.

However, as I've got deeper into the game, I realize that the actual racing is pathetic. Whereas Forza 1 offered tight, thrilling races against a very tough, aggressive AI, GT4 offers an AI where the only driving strategy is "out-brake & dive inside on the corner". It makes the racing totally unsatisfying.

The only advantage GT4 has over Forza right now IMO is support for the Logitech wheels. Having made the decision to invest in a G25 wheel rather than an Xbox 360, I'm really hoping PD comes up with the goods with GT5.
 
False.

It's a fact that it's just to hard to program explosions and such. I clearly recall losing wheels in Colin McRae 04 and up, and we all see cars blow up in movies all the time. Once you pay for a license you can usually do whatever you want with the car. People just make these (oh the manufactures wouldn't want that) crap up. In essence, as long as the car has screen time, it's getting publicity, and as anyone will tell you. There is no such thing as bad publicity.
Total and utter cack.

I work in the motor industry and have worked for manufacturers and such a thing as bad publicity most certainly does exist (just ask Audi how long it took to get over the 60 minutes self-accelerating story).

Manufacturers attitudes to damage most certainly does vary, with some not accepting any damage to be modelled at all, with others (Ford as the link in the post above details) being much more lenient.

Ford are generally acknowledged as being one of the most lenient of all manufacturers when it comes to road car damage in video games, and they still will not allow passenger cell intrusion or roll-overs.

The game you cite as an example features only licensed race cars, a quite different story. Paying for a licence does not give you permission to do what you want at all, the conditions of the licence determine what you are allowed to do (and in most cases will require approval by the manufacturer) and also which models of car you can use. The manufacturer sets the terms, not the game producer.

As for this bit...

People just make these (oh the manufactures wouldn't want that) crap up.

...well the only person making things up here is you. Either that or Mark Bentley from Ford didn't really say this in an interview...


Mark Bentley

Q. What are some of the guidelines that you require a publisher/developer to follow?




MB: We can’t have explosions. Rollovers – we generally don’t like to see rollovers. We know it does happen, but [we want it to be] minimal, if at all. No gratuitous sex, violence, obscene language. Pedestrians cannot be hit by a car. We’re always very safety-conscious. We will allow pedestrians on the course provided that they are not able to be hit. Provided that they vanish out of the way, what have you. Our cars can’t be put in any bad light, you know, where they’re out to do bad things to people.



Q. How do you feel about body damage? It seems like car companies don’t want their cars to be scratched in a game. I understand that, but at the same time, based on the crash tests you show on TV, have you ever considered including an element like that in the game?




MB: Yes. We are probably more liberal than people think on damage now. In Test Drive Unlimited the cars receive very little damage. But you’ll find it in other games. For example, Need For Speed Carbon – you’ll see a lot more damage. The only thing we will not allow is for the passenger cabin to be compromised where someone could be physically injured. Now, they could be theoretically injured in a crash where the front end is bunched up and the passenger cabin is still intact. But the goal at all times it to promote safety, and making sure that Ford vehicles don’t get portrayed in an unsafe way. But we are not against damage-modelling in games. We do realism in a game, and we think that makes the game more real.

....sounds rather a lot like manufacturers do have rather a large amount to say in how there products are displayed.

Movies are also a rather poor comparison as well, the same licensing applies to movies, but as they are not an interactive medium manufacturers are a lot more liberal again. However if you want to do something without manufacturer approval in a film you can, just make sure its an out of production model and de-badge it.


Scaff
 
Thank you Quiet_Storm and Scaff, you've saved me the time and effort of making the same points, only better than I would 👍.

rotary_freq, don't try to discuss things as deep as marketing off the top of your head. Really you should know what your talking about all the time but some things are deeper and more complex than others, and it's a deep and complex world in the little rooms marketing peeps sit in.
 
False.

It's a fact that it's just to hard to program explosions and such. I clearly recall losing wheels in Colin McRae 04 and up, and we all see cars blow up in movies all the time. Once you pay for a license you can usually do whatever you want with the car. People just make these (oh the manufactures wouldn't want that) crap up. In essence, as long as the car has screen time, it's getting publicity, and as anyone will tell you. There is no such thing as bad publicity.

Racing licenses are entirely different from a manufacturer.

Colin McRae's developers only had to gain access to what ever Rally Racing Board they were trying to get cars from. GTR is the same way as Ferrari, Lamborghini, and the others have no right in Simbin and 10tacle buying the FIA GT license. Why? For 1, none of them run any teams. They're not allowed to, but since they build cars for the series, they also sign an agreement. 2, the teams are the ones who also sign the agreement. This Agreement, which has both the manufacturer and the teams sign for the FIA GT board (and about any other racing series), includes the fact that they agree and allow a game developer to use their vehicles and liveries.

Now, the 1 thing a racing license and a manufacturer license have in common is damage. Both the Racing Board of a series, and Manufacturer have terms in their contracts that say, "You will NOT show any visulization of the crumple zone on the car or any impacting damage to the driver cockpit.

And when you think about it, it's very easy to see why. Manufacturers don't want customers getting the idea of how their cars stand up in racing games. Nissan doesn't want you to see a Sentra get torn to pieces in a game, and have you get the impression that is how "safe or unsafe" the car really is even though no game will ever fully recreate the physics of impact on cars as they really would.
The FIA GT denies it because its teams are run independent. They don't want teams getting the impression the Corvette C6R isn't very safe in the series should something happen to it in a game.

The rule of damage in racing games is 98% of the time, you do not show crumple zones or cockpit damage. Customers are a very giant role to these folks.
 
the PS2 was obsolete the day it released - over 1GHZ CPU's had been selling for over a year before the PS2 release date
Would you have bought a $3000 PS2? If you were expecting top-of-the-line hardware, it's only fair for you to expect top-of-the-line prices.

Not to mention the fact that videogame consoles don't need nearly as much power as the average PC to play games -- a PC's game-playing capabilities are choked by the fact that there are a nearly infinite number of possible hardware combinations out there, and games are programmed (through common-language APIs like DirectX) to (hopefully) work on all of them. All of this compatibility comes at the expense of performance.

Meanwhile, videogame consoles aren't different from machine to machine, at least not in crucial areas like the CPU and GPU. This allows developers to fine-tune and optimize their games for the console, taking advantage of specific CPU/GPU features and leaving out things that can't be done. This is partially why emulators require so much more processing power than the systems they emulate.

what Polyphony managed to do was get a resemblance of real world handeling , that was adjustable with semi-realistic results happening with high quality (considering the hardware) 3D models - running at a consistently smooth frame rate
Aside from the fact that I think the handling is far from worthy of the "real driving simulator" moniker, I noted in my last post (and many others have noticed) that the frame rate becomes unstable from time to time, causing a flickering on the screen.

do you know how CPU cycle heavy running Ai is ? & running multiple Ai at once - you know how demanding that can be ? case in point is how much more Xbox version of the same game can run . Valve never bothered to even try HL2 on the POS2 for good reason . it lacks the balls
The TOCA series never had problems running a much larger grid than GT4, on the PS2. It's obvious from GT Visions and GT5 that Polyphony Digital wanted larger grids for GT4, and if they had done a better job of managing their resources, they could have had them, even on the PS2.

GT4 also fudges with simplistic physics - but Polyphony managed to get the (1000+ ?) cars showing variation in performance & the Ai runs them accordingly
So? F-ZERO for the SNES showed variation in performance between the racecraft. What good is one car feeling slightly different from another if they don't feel right to begin with?

Polyphony know how to put together a smooth running game on Sony's architecture
Did you even read my previous post? Do you have nothing to say for the many limitations and feature cuts of GT4?
 
I for one, am not concerned about having 20 cars on the grid. I would be content with 6 if they exhibited decent AI & competitive racing tactics. Having a bunch more cars tooling around idiotically, like they do in GT4, would be no improvement at all...
 
I for one, am not concerned about having 20 cars on the grid. I would be content with 6 if they exhibited decent AI & competitive racing tactics. Having a bunch more cars tooling around idiotically, like they do in GT4, would be no improvement at all...

Agreed...


I didn't read the whole thread either, so I'm just gonna add my 2 cents to the OP:

If I hadn't played GT4 to death I'd probably still play that first, as it offers more single player content and has "easier" physics. Besides, there's GTPlanet :sly: But... right now I, and many others, are sick and tired of GT4 and need something else while PD take their time with the next one... So Forza basically wins for me because it here, now. It's breaking consoles and I knew it, but I still bought it cause I need something fresh to play.

Since my major post-completion activity is and will be drifting, I find myself more and more frustrated by GT4's traction physics. I've already "done" most of what I can do in GT4 and I can't see any way to make it more than it is... so I went ahead and bought an xbox while I wait.

Before you argue about xlink and all that, keep in mind that it's:
1: Limited to stock cars, which get boring fast.
2: Practically limited to NTSC players since PAL is not compatible, and let's face it.. the "scene" over here is pretty tiny.

Now on to FM2... the game freaks out the console, crashing and overheating it like no tomorrow and the MS wheel (only FF wheel available) is utter rubbish compared to the DFP, with shoddy build quality to boot. Yet it's something fresh, with HD graphics and good physics.. and it even has another timesink in the paint and body shop. The single player mode isn't a lot less than GT4's either.. it just seems like it because of the shorter races and compact menus. Live Gold costs money, but face it... the fee is so tiny it's not gonna impact anything.

GT4 wins on variety, hardware and stability, but I have to say Forza 2 seems better in most other aspects (except the surface on the nürburgring). I do think that GT5 will crush Forza though... especially for me.

On that note I'll probably cave in and get GT5 when it arrives (maybe even the prologue), but they'll have to lower the price of the console before that. Most americans probably don't know this, but EU PS3s are currently over $1000 with no reduction plans, so that might help you understand why people are more interested in getting the Xbox. If importing US stations for personal use was allowed, I'd do that.. but Sony's been desperate to assure that Europeans HAVE to pay twice as much, wait longer for each game and not get 70% of the titles at all (which is the case).

Now, if any of you americans would volunteer to send me an NTSC PS3 I'd be more than happy to pay for it ;)
 
I for one, am not concerned about having 20 cars on the grid. I would be content with 6 if they exhibited decent AI & competitive racing tactics. Having a bunch more cars tooling around idiotically, like they do in GT4, would be no improvement at all...

Agreed, but hopefully from GameSpot saying they witnessed some more intelligent AI, we'll be getting that and a "20" car grid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back